Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I know we all worry about what kids are exposed to on the internet. Extreme content is everywhere, online bullying is worsening and kids can gamble with the click of a button. I get it; I'm a grandparent. I want to protect my grandchildren too, and I understand why so many people would think a social media ban would be a good idea. We all want to protect our kids, to shield them from harm and to keep them safe from the dangers of the world for as long as we possibly can. It's natural. The internet is a wild and often unregulated place. We feel we have very little control of what our children see or do online.

But the unfortunate reality of this flawed bill—the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024—is that it won't actually do that. It won't protect our kids. It likely won't even stop them from using these platforms or seeing the harmful content we so desperately want to shield them from. What it will do, dangerously, is create the illusion of action while not addressing the real dangers of the online world. I know many parents want something—anything—to be done, but this bill is just not the solution. This bill shifts the blame. Instead of holding billion-dollar tech giants accountable for their harmful practices, it targets kids and families. It says to parents, 'You figure it out,' while these corporations keep profiting off the harm that they do. Banning young people from these platforms doesn't stop them from accessing harmful content, it doesn't stop tech giants from exploiting their data and pushing toxic algorithms, and it certainly doesn't fix the root problem.

The government claims this legislation is world-leading. Yes—but, embarrassingly, what it is leading the world in is poorly thought-through legislation. It is leading the world in legislation uninformed by evidence. It is leading the world in legislation so riddled with privacy and safety risks that it'll likely do more harm than good. The minister herself seemed underwhelmed by her own legislation when trying to defend it in a response to a question in question time this week.

The joint select committee inquiry into social media heard months of evidence from experts, parents, young people and organisations, and their overwhelming majority recommendation was not to impose an age ban. Other countries have tried similar measures, and they've failed abysmally. South Korea, for instance, rolled back their shutdown law in 2021 because it simply did not work. The government's response? Ignore the experts and the months of evidence, and instead rely on a 16-page evaluation report by the Office of Impact Analysis—a report widely criticised as thin on evidence. It even cites a study that doesn't support banning children under 16. In fact, the study's co-author has publicly stated that the government has misunderstood the findings, which is completely unsurprising from a government that has made a name for itself comprehensively misunderstanding the real needs of everyday Australians, hanging them out to dry while corporations are continuously let off the hook. This proposed 'fix' to online harms for young people is just more of the same.

I have heard from many Ryan parents who, of course, want their kids to be safe online; we all do. But they know, as do the experts, that banning kids from social media is not the answer. Kids are smart. They're smarter than most of us in this place when it comes to navigating social media. They will find ways around these bans.

One of the most glaring issues with this bill is privacy. While the legislation prohibits platforms from using data collected for age verification for other purposes, it doesn't change the fact that it requires young people and everyone else to share sensitive information with platforms that have a long history—a bad history—of exploiting user data for their own profit. Really, who trusts social media companies with their data? Few do, and that's for very good reason. Platforms like Facebook have repeatedly shown that they will prioritise profit over privacy, often at the expense of their most vulnerable users. Yet Labor proposes we hand them more of our personal information. It's insanity!

Prohibition isn't safe. Prohibition is a bandaid that fails to address the fundamental problem, which is the toxic business models of tech giants. These platforms profit from harmful algorithms that push extreme content, exploit personal data and target young people with predatory advertising. It's their business model. Experts have made it clear that these are the root causes of online harm.

The government has promised exemptions for services like headspace, Kids Helpline and Google Classroom, but these exemptions rely on future regulations; they're not even in this bill. If those regulations aren't passed in time or if a new government chooses not to follow through, kids could lose access to online spaces designed to actually help them and educate them.

The loopholes in this bill are so huge you could drive a truck through them. Kids will always find workarounds; the Prime Minister has already admitted as much. So what are we really achieving here? We're not protecting kids. We're driving them towards less regulated, more dangerous corners of the internet.

What about the unintended consequences for young people's mental health and wellbeing? Cutting them off from social media doesn't eliminate the challenges they face. It isolates them from their peers, their communities and vital support networks. Online spaces can be dangerous, but they can also be lifelines. Rather than banning young people from these platforms, we should be empowering them with the tools to navigate these spaces safely and confidently.

We need education. The government should fund programs that teach digital literacy and online safety skills to young people and their families. Prohibition doesn't teach kids how to be safe online. It just sort of pushes the problem out of sight. Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for harmful content, predatory advertising and unsafe practices. This flawed bill doesn't solve those problems. It's being rushed through, and its consequences will be far-reaching and deeply harmful not just for young people but for everyone who uses the internet.

See this speech in context